MADISON COUNTY, NEW YORK, ET AL.
v.
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Madison County, New York and Oneida County sought to foreclose on property owned by the Oneida Indian Nation to collect lawfully imposed property taxes, raising questions about whether tribal sovereign immunity bars such tax foreclosure and whether the ancient Oneida reservation had been disestablished. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Second Circuit after the Oneida Nation passed an ordinance waiving its sovereign immunity from property tax foreclosure enforcement, directing the appellate court to reconsider the sovereign immunity issue in light of this new development.
[1] A tribal declaration and ordinance waiving sovereign immunity to enforcement of real property taxation through foreclosure may require a court to revisit its ruling on so…
[2] A court should address the validity, scope, and permanence of a tribal waiver of sovereign immunity when presented with new factual developments.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari, post, p. 960, on the questions “whether tribal sovereign immunity from suit, to the extent it should continue to be recognized, bars taxing authorities from foreclosing to collect lawfully imposed property taxes” and “whether the ancient Oneida reservation in New York was disestablished or diminished.” Pet. for Cert. i. Counsel for respondent Oneida Indian Nation advised the Court through a letter on November 30, 2010, that the Nation had, on November 29, 2010, passed a tribal declaration and ordinance waiving “its sovereign immunity to enforcement of real property taxation through foreclosure by state, county and local governments within and throughout the United States.” Oneida Indian Nation, Ordinance No. 0-10-1 (2010). Petitioners Madison and Oneida Counties responded in a December 1, 2010 letter, questioning the validity, scope, and permanence of that waiver; the Nation addressed those concerns in a December 2, 2010 letter. We vacate the judgment and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court should address, in the first instance, whether to revisit its ruling on sovereign immunity in light of this new factual development, and — if necessary — proceed to address other questions in the case consistent with its sovereign immunity ruling. See Kiyemba v. Obama, 559 U. S. 131 (2010) (per curiam).
Petitioners are awarded costs in this Court pursuant to this Court’s Rule 43.2.
It is so ordered.
Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reese v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n, 103 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…nvestment Act. See supra note 1. . The validity of this interpretation of the provision by the Internal Revenue Service has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Mayo Found, for Med. Educ. & Re [*199] search v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 704, 178 L.Ed.2d 588 (2011).…
-
Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (U.S. 2015)…-2130. Determining whether a claim is indefinite is thus akin to other legal inquiries commonly performed in the course of interpreting written instruments. See, e.g., Mayo Foundation for Medical Ed. and Research v. United States,562 U.S. 44, 52-53, 131 S.Ct. 704, 178 L.Ed.2d 588 (2011)(reviewing without deference the district court's determination that a statute is unambiguous at step one of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984));…
-
Romano-Murphy v. Comm'r of the Internal Revenue Serv., 816 F.3d 707 (11th Cir. 2016)…en the Secretary of the Treasury authority to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement” of the Internal Revenue Code, see 26 U.S.C. § 7805(a), and in Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 562 U.S. 44, 55-57, 131 S.Ct. 704, 178 L.Ed.2d 588 (2011), the Supreme Court expressly held that Treasury regulations issued pursuant to this authority are entitled to deference under Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778. This means that we are obliged to follow such Treasur…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kiyemba v. Obama, 559 U.S. 131 (U.S. 2010)